AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal and cross objection preferred by the Assessee and the revenue against the order dated 22.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1075794377(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 29.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi for AY: 2017-18.
At the time of hearing ld. Counsel has pointed out that assessee has raised cross objection on the basis that reassessment framed is liable to be quashed for the reason that notice u/s 148 for relevant AY: 2017-18 was issued beyond surviving time limit and is hit by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC).
Ld. Counsel has appreciated from the material on record the dates and chronology of events and for convenience we reproduce the same:
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Dates |
| 1. | Assessment Year | 2017-18 |
| 2. | First Notice issued U/s 148 under old regime (pg. 27 of PB) | 30.06.2021 |
| 3. | Extended deadline to issue notice U/s 148 under old regime, as per TOLA and notifications issued | 30.06.2021 |
| 4. | Surviving Time Limit | (30.06.2021 to 30.06.2021) |
| 5. | Date of SC order in Ashish Agarwal’s case | 04.05.2022 |
| 6. | Date of providing information/notice U/s 148A(b) in pursuance of Ashish Agarwal’s case (pg. 31-33 of PB) | 21.05.2022 |
| 7. | Time limit of file the reply as U/s 148A(b) i.e., within 2 weeks | 07.06.2022 |
| 8. | Reply filed by the assessee (pg. 34-47 of PB) | 07.06.2022 |
| 9. | Time excluded as per Rajeev Bansal’s case | 30.06.2021 to 07.06.2022 |
| 10. | Time that was available/left to issue notice U/s 148 as TOLA limit | 0 day |
| 11. | Extended time to be given as per fourth Proviso to section 149(1) | 7 days |
| 12. | Time limit to issue notice U/s 148 as per section 149 (as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal’s case) i.e., 7 days from 07.06.2022 | 14.06.2022 |
| 13 | Order passed u/s 148A(d) was passed with prior approval of Pr. CIT-4,Delhi (pg. 48-50 of PB) | 29.07.2022 |
| 14 | Notice U/s 148 issued with prior approval of Pr. CIT-4, Delhi accorded on 22.07.2022 (pg. 51-52 of PB) | 29.07.2022 |
The ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid chronology.
It further comes up that in regard to present assessment year the notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.07.2022 i.e. after 3 years have lapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, thus, prior approval from competent authority was needed but the competent authority in the case of assessee should have been Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas approval has been taken from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -4, Delhi. This fact also could not be disputed by Ld. DR.
In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to sustain the grounds raised in the cross objection and allow the same. As a consequence, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. The impugned reassessment order is quashed.